Acoustic guitar “cheat” chords for the key of G

This is the first of a 10-part series showing substitute chords that you can use in the given key or in another key in conjunction with a capo. These substitutes are alternative voicings to regular chords and are often used by players who want easy fingerings from one chord to the next in conjunction with open strings that smooth out the sound when moving from one chord to the next.

If you normally stick with the regular chord shapes then we strongly recommend trying these as the next stage in the development of your guitar skills. If you already know some alternative shapes then hopefully there will be a few that are new to you here, especially when we get into less familiar keys.

So let’s start in the key of G. If you are playing any song that sticks within the key then you’ll be using one of these chords. As you can see chord 1 is as normal but chord 2 instead of a regular Am, is now voiced as an Am7. You can still play this over the normal chord but is an easier transition on the fingers and because it shares open and fretted notes with other voicings in the key, provides something known as a smooth voice leading from one shape to the next.

A couple of points to be aware of: in many ‘pop’ based chord progressions, songs that use the 3rd bass note, B in this key, sometimes utilise a ‘1’ chord (G) with the 3rd bass note (B) forming a G/B chord instead of the regular Bm chord for a more ‘major’ sound.

A similar thing happens in chord progression when you want to use the 7th bass note as the basis for your chord over the melody. Now, correctly this would be an F# diminished chord which sounds pretty dark and jazzy so instead a lot of songs utilise the 5th chord (D) with the 7th bass note, forming D/F# which I’m sure most of you have come across with songs in the key of G.

I agree, as a full time player/teacher people want knowledge first and then (hopefully) understanding later. But it has to start with us being absolutely 100% correct all the time - if pupils ask why a chord is named a certain way then we tell them. I also think that as teachers it's down to us to pass on a love of learning so that they do ask those questions.

And thanks about the you're wrong comment. As my D# comment i'm sure i could have worded it better to provide caveats, but sometimes as you im sure you know its difficult to get music concepts across in words in short pieces without going into every possible exception

Thanks Neil to be fair, thats what we do on all of our tuition DVDs - as well as the guitar ones, Understanding Chords and playing by ear goes into that very deeply - but like it or not, not everyone wants a full in depth explanation straight off the bat. Some people only want functional information to take them to the next step. What we can do is give them something usable that hopefully makes them want to explore more. Many musicians sadly don't want more, but we have to bridge that gap sometimes in generalised layman's terms to get the bigger picture point across.

you certainly have jumped in - you are clearly are very knowledgeable Mr Neil Morgan and i'm in awe that you could post so much wonderful knowledge and yet miss the point of the original post. For people who aren't pros we need music teachers and resources to help us... to be honest you have missed the point and proven to us that you know lots about music.

You're right that most worship music is influenced by contemporary pop/rock, and I think that's probably a good thing as it's a little more inclusive, but I do feel very strongly that if you're responsible for any kind of musical education you have to tell the whole story. Whether or not a sus2 has a third is not a naming convention, it's the very difference between a sus2 and an add9. The "add" means additional (ie. as well as the basic triad) and the "sus" means suspended (ie. replacing the third). There are definitely times when guitarists can't play a true voicing due to the physical limitations of the instrument - for example, any kind of 13 chord should technically contain seven notes, which you can't do with six strings - which is where you guys should be explaining how to capture the essence of a chord without playing all of it; with an add9 chord, the combination of the third, ninth, and the way the interact with each other within the chord is that essence. I understand the point of this article is to help people break out of bland chord shapes, and that is a brilliant and necessary aim, but it's serving as a cheat sheet rather than proper tuition - and that is the problem with too many worship musicians these days. Nobody has a clue what they're doing, and for some reasons that's okay as long as they know a bunch of chord shapes and buy a capo.

Neil - I used the term theology deliberately, and light heartedly, for a reason... the term music theory has a clue in the title too so maybe not everything is in absolutes…? Within Dadd9 the 9th is a 9th because it’s a compound interval above the octave, not within the octave. But again more importantly it’s the sound of it above the octave that gives the chord its particular flavour. Which is why some other way more noted chord theology scholars than myself would call it an add9 too. If you'd prefer to think of it as a sus2, feel free, but please be careful not to causally dismiss something as “too bad its wrong..” just because we disagree on a naming convention. Players who haven’t got much chord knowledge will often shy away from using a chart like this if someone knowledgeable swiftly proclaims it to be incorrect. And that’s a shame because this chart is supposed to be a functionally helpful guide to chord shapes that are easy to play that work over regular chords in the genre of pop based worship music. If i took this tack i'd have to name the Bm7 above as Bm11(no 3rd) or the Fadd9 in the upcoming C shapes chart as Fmaj7sus2/C(no3rd), So in a bigger picture way chord naming does need a little bit of pragmatism but more importantly it needs to be functional within the music you are trying to help people make. You could play that F#dim chord in the progression you described but F#dim doesn’t feature in this chart because it’s typically unlikely to be used in the genre that modern functional worship music comes from. whereas D/F# is. Oasis, U2, Coldplay etc etc don’t generally use diminished chords because that dim sound doesn’t often fit authentically fit within that genre. I.e. it’s easy to play ‘peoples’ music and like it or not most contemporary worship music is inspired by that genre.

Dear Musicademyi thank you for this informative and useful post. Despite, the massively dull discussion about correctly naming the chords that has taken place, i have found the challenge of experimenting with difference chord shapes a bonus to my playing. Thank you

Although, on second reading, the D/F# isn't actually about "encountering an F# bass note" - it's about using an inversion of the V chord to create a more interesting sound. For example, if the song was in E minor and the F# bass note led onto a B, I'd interpret that as ii-V in E minor and most definitely use the F# diminished chord. Not that I tend to read bass charts whilst playing guitar.

To play Dadd9, if you're interested, just barre the three treble strings with your first finger at the second fret and then use your fourth finger on the fifth fret of the B string. Strum the four strings that you'd normally use for any other open position D shape.

I see what you're saying about about the D/F# and F#dim issue, but the idea that a Dadd9 that doesn't contain an F# still being correct is, with respect, wrong. We're talking about music theory (not theology, that's the study of God and our relationship with him) and there are absolutes. The notes of D, E, and A combine to make either Dsus2 - the most common voicing for which you've shown - or Asus4. They're inversions of each other. Dadd9 is the notes of D, E, F# and A arranged however you want. It doesn't matter what octave you put the the ninth, it'll still be a Dadd9 chord - the issue then becomes about musicality and usability, which is when it does become a little less absolute.

Hi Neil... well that depends on your chord theology rather than it being 'wrong'. It's an add9 not a sus2 because the crucial E note is placed above the octave, not within it and thats the important thing to get across in the naming - i.e the difference in the sound of that top string, which is the sound you'll hear the most. Same with the Cadd9 vs. what some people call C2 or Csus2. If you add the open D note just above the root it just sounds pretty horrible on guitar so its important to show the D above the octave. Yes there is no 3rd but thats more because of the physical limitations of your finger length using that shape. Many guitar chord shapes are somewhat pragmatically named because of the nature of guitar strings and plausible fingerings. So sometimes guitar chords are named to get across the the most important information otherwise the names could get incredibly long and confusing. Also if you read the article it does say that the D/F# is often used more in pop based music when encountering an F# bass note rather than the diminished chord because it sounds quite dark and jazzy. (not that we've just a 7th extension on any chord here so the D# wouldn't feature anyway) - The article doesn't suggest you can use the D/F# over a D#dim, - Its just giving popular easy to use chord fingerings in key for typical common practice pop based type worship songs.

I'm just checking but are you being inconsistent with your use of 'x's in the chart? e.g. the Asus4 has no E in the bass and I presume neither does the G/B? Most seems fairly obvious. Nice chart though

I have just discovered that one of the most awesome chords is the last "D" chord shown above with the 6th string tuned to a D! I think Charlie Landsborough uses this on the great Youtube video - "I will love you all my life ".

Hello Andy and folks,
here are two new chords in the key of G
I really like them,... sound to me like a Cmaj7 and a kein of Em7 or 9 or so *lol*
Em - (X)7900 - X ist optional since it is also an "E" (but I like to mute the string)
C - 8X900 - I like this one
hope these are new to some...
blessings,
david

Hello from England!
Yes, they are more than a commodity DVD and they do cost a lot to produce - particularly being in a small market with a niche audience. However i always to try get people to see the learning they get in comparison to the cost of guitar lessons. (even just trying to find a guitar teacher who understands the needs of a worship musician can be tricky in some locations).
We've always tried to cram enough techniques, lessons and ideas onto a DVD set that will the keep the average musician busy for about a year. Obviously you could watch the DVD's in 7 hours (if you really wanted to stare at me for that long!) but to really integrate the learning into your playing will take some time if you are new to the techniques.
So i know its a bit more than the average 3 DVD movie set, but in comparison to the value against the cost of private lessons, i think it stacks up pretty well, and my constant hope is that it pays back dividends to the players many times over their initial investment in the product itself.
So I hope that helps and thanks for the input - if you've got any other good chord shapes, keep 'em coming!
Andy

Hi Andy,
I hardly use the normal G chord since I got the G5 chord. I really sounds nice and clear without the a-string
you are the guy from the DVD right? :-)
Hello from Germany!!!
I bought together with my girlfriend 2 boxes. I am thinking about buying the acoustic dvds - just watched the trailer... but the price... uhhh - but I also know it is not cheap to produce stuff like this...
thanks again for posting these shapes...!

Hi David
thanks for all the comments. Yes the original Intermediate DVD set is more electric orientated. We got a lot of comments from players who wanted specific acoustic lessons, which is why we produced the Intermediate Acoustic guitars DVDs. These chords are actually an except from one of the lessons on it. I really like the G chord variant you are talking about (G5). i use it a lot, particularly with overdriven electric guitar as removing the 3rd note on the A string works well with any kind of distortion.

Hi Marie,
thanks for the quick respond and quick realization of my html tip :)
These are great to read now - I would love to see the others changed too!
I actually love to play a slightly different version of the G-chord displayed above: play the shape of the "G" in the first row and mute with the index finger the "A-String". it should be somthing like this then: 3X0033.
I have bought some time ago the worship guitar intermediate set 3DVD box set. At this time there werent that much other dvds arround here and unfortunately this one was more for electric guitars than acoustic, but I am still playing arround with the scales :)
blessings,
david

Brilliant idea David. I've managed that with A and G. Can you check you are happy with these and I'll change the others too. Learnt something new.
Actually, its also been really nice to get some feedback from all you guys who have posted to say that you would like the chord shapes. Sometimes it can feel a bit like we're blogging into a vacuum.
And whilst you are all feeling like adding comments, have you got the Intermediate Acoustic Guitar DVDs? Enjoying them? Finding them helpful? Or managing just with these chord shapes? Feedback like that really helps us shape what we do in terms of creating new DVDs and writing content for the blog.
Thanks!

Hey Marie,
thank you so much for the offer - that would be great. Please find my adress typed in in this post.
What you can also do is this: upload the pic in HighRes BUT use a smaller aspect ratio in the html code on this website. So you have a 1280px x 1024px version on the webserver but the blog only displays it in your desired 520px × 359px. The pic would be linked to the original image and user can download in in highres - if you have any questions to these stammerings, let me know :-)
Many blessings,
david

Hi David
These are as high res as we can get them - anything larger will wreck the overall design of the web page template. What I can do when we get to the end of the series is make the chords available as a high res sheet so you can print them out and use them.
If anyone would like that sheet emailed please comment below.

F#dim uses the notes F# A and C. But you wouldn't normally use this chord in straightforward pop based progressions. Much of the time, in most worship songs, if the bass note goes to F# you would play the 5th chord in the key (D) plus an F# bass note, so D/F#. F#m has F# A and C# notes but this chord isn't in the key of G which is why its not contained on this chart.
Both the intermediate Acoustic and the regular Intermediate guitar DVDs go into this much more heavily if you want to learn about chord theory and how chords are constructed.

@Andy Chamberlain I think the °7 and Ø7 are great chords for substitutions, even in modern pop progressions. I actually think that most of modern pop theory revolves around the half diminished and fully diminished chords and the extended substitutions they imply.

If you're interested I'd love to have a more in depth discussion about them and the other subs that you can derive from the theoretical knowledge.

@trickysam Hi Sam. Yep i do agree you can apply all sorts of diminished based chord substitutions in pop based music. Feel free to add your thoughts here - but obviously do bear in mind the genre and style of music we are talking about in the post. i.e. common practice congregational worship music. Subbing in any diminished based chords not only has to be playable and understood by the average volunteer musician, but they also have to sound authentic in the style or genre of music you're making. So for gospel and hymn styles then yes, but for what i'd call the 'community music' based pop worship genre (i.e the simplicity of the style has defined its own sound), diminished based subs can sometimes sound unnecessarily complex or 'clever'.

They can, depending on how they're done, but I think that diminished implied subs are pretty well accepted in pop styles, because they've been so widespread for so long. Most people who do them don't know why they would work, for instance this common ending:

bVI - bVII - I

which I would normally realize with added ninths, so for C

Ab2 - Bb2 - C2

This is a standard implied sub for

V7 of V - V7 - I ( D7 - G7 - C)

which has been used extensively enough that it should be pretty accessible to almost any musician in the pop genre, nor does it use chords that are beyond what volunteer musicians should know (although I would advance that if they intend to volunteer their services to God their starting level is irrelevant, but they should plan on widening their skill set as needed, and that part of the sacrifice involves personal musical development on a consistent and ongoing basis).

I'd be happy to share my ideas, but I'm probably not the best judge of which ones are suitable in this forum, which is why I suggested a dialog with you first.